One does not always need source documents to discover the truth about a particular story as one can use logically examine what already exists as was the case with my first post about the existence of the modern form of COINTELPRO. If Julian Assange had been around in Charles Darwin’s time, I doubt he would deny evolution because of the lack of official documents but would examine the evidence?

If there is no counterargument to my first post then the conclusion stands and there is no need for “original documents”. Any original documents which one may have such as audio recordings and emails which I possess just support the conclusion..

In fact such a reliance upon “official documents” is wholly damaging to the interests of leakers. Governments would naturally regard a reliance by wikileaks and others only upon original documents as particularly convenient in that they will chose provide “official documents” which are “leaked” in order to conceal worse stories (as pointed out by Suzie Dawson and will be pointed out by myself) or which are at variance with the truth as was the case with the zinoviev letter.

It’s called disinformation and I can think of at least one example of this in the past six months. Going back further into history there is also the double-cross system in WWII which relied upon official sources.

In other respects there has not been a leak of the scale of Snowden since well Snowden. What was revealed in vault 7, without meaning to sound disrespectful to wikileaks, was bound to exist in that it revealed examples of what Snowden had already revealed. In any case what was revealed was old technology and the CIA have found other flaws (given the hacking on my tails and OSX installations). And furthermore, it was obvious that the CIA would spy on the French election.

In the absence of anything official or truly groundbreaking, it makes sense to examine what already exists and encourage leaks which fit around conclusions which made and against which there has been no counterargument.